Lamson, White, Thompson, Hagerman, Colby, Fetzer.

[John Dolva]

Lee, this is probably redundant, you strike me as someone who has got what it takes. Hitting back is a tough one though, pour water on a fire, not petrol, I read you understand this fundament. This is like a regular hazing. Don't get sucked in. (I rather thought I would be entering a roomful of scholars. Instead its a bloody war zone. You prob don't know how many times I've determined to quit, others prob have an inkling). But the matter is important and ultimately, particularly as demonstrated by Jerry and Bernice (on their good days) and definitely by Robin, a pause, maybe even going outside and bashing the head against the wall while counting to 500, whatever, can be sustaining in the long run on this very important matter this section of the Education Forum is concerned with (tho I'd like to see the other sections flourish as well). This isn't for us, it never has been, it's for our children and the world we we leave to them. - zip!

[David G. Healy]

Lee intoned:

"There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from"

Well, Lee...that is to be preferred in JFK studies. If I recall, in Stone's JFK movie, the Garrison

character said something like "we're through the looking glass here, folks, where black is white

and white is black!"

If you have studied the case and have not reached the point where BLACK IS BLACK AND WHITE

IS WHITE, then you have not acquired the proper sense of RIGHT AND WRONG to be pontificating to

others about it.

Black and white thinking and a sense of right and wrong are NECESSARY in THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

That you abhor it tells more about you than about us.

Jack

Jack

You have taken one of my sentences, just one of many, and twisted and mangled it to fit your narrow view of the world and your narrow view of the English language.

And you have done this whilst "pontificating" about my "pontificating." Do you even know what this word means?

Lee

never fear there Lee'O, appears ole Kathy has your thinly, disguised back..... but please, continue pontificating -- a not so new, lone nut, defect of character... we've seen it before - we'll see it again...

Dave

It has to be said that I haven't a clue what the jibberish you've written means. Is there a Healyism translation guide that accompanies your posts?

How am I a "lone-nut" if I believe individuals in the U.S. Government planned the assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire any weapons that day? Will the translation guide help me solve this riddle of your mind?

Lee

please, sell the nutter-xxxxx trivia elsewhere, willya? The WCR shills are out in force, AGAIN... it does appear John D. is buying...

and while your at it, Lee'O... help us understand how the government planned the assassination of JFK! Can you wrap your mind around your boast, enlighten the public?

Start a new thread, lets hear all about it!

[Jack White]

Jack,

The search for truth should be open-minded. You can pick a side, but be willing to change your mind, based on the information you are given. To do less would cheat yourself.

It is unfair of you to say he has not acquired a "proper sense of right and wrong" I assume you say this because his "sense" is not the same as yours.

Kathy

Poor, deluded Ms. Beckett! She does not know the difference between an OPEN mind and and EMPTY mind.

About 45 years ago when I became a JFK researcher (before she was born it seems) I had an OPEN mind;

I absorbed every fact I could. At a time when I had assimilated a sufficient amount of information I was

ready to form opinions and conclusions based on my accumulation of information. I long ago deduced how

the assassination happened. I no longer have an open mind because it is filled with information, opinions

and conclusions. That is how history is studied...filling an open mind with relevant information.

Poor, deluded Ms. Beckett has an EMPTY MIND. Information passes through her head without meaning.

She is afraid to form opinions or reach conclusions about information. Yet she presumes to lecture me about

what I should believe and that I am unfair to others with empty minds. In Texas we call such people armadillos.

Armadillos stay in THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, without definite beliefs. They generally end up as ROADKILL.

Jack

[Jack White]

Lee intoned:

"There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from"

Well, Lee...that is to be preferred in JFK studies. If I recall, in Stone's JFK movie, the Garrison

character said something like "we're through the looking glass here, folks, where black is white

and white is black!"

If you have studied the case and have not reached the point where BLACK IS BLACK AND WHITE

IS WHITE, then you have not acquired the proper sense of RIGHT AND WRONG to be pontificating to

others about it.

Black and white thinking and a sense of right and wrong are NECESSARY in THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

That you abhor it tells more about you than about us.

Jack

Jack

You have taken one of my sentences, just one of many, and twisted and mangled it to fit your narrow view of the world and your narrow view of the English language.

That isn't what I said and you know it, applying what you have written to the accurate quote at the top of your post is disingenuous. For someone who was so concerned that I was misquoting you a few days ago (when it was you misquoting ME, AGAIN), I find this somewhat disturbing.

And you have done this whilst "pontificating" about my "pontificating." Do you even know what this word means?

Lee

I, of course, HAVE NOT MISQUOTED YOU. I quoted you word for word. Your meaning was very clear.

I twisted NOTHING nor MANGLED anything. You are in no position to lecture anyone.

And to pontificate: To act like a pontiff; to express one’s position or opinions dogmatically and pompously as if it is absolutely correct.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Jack White

[Pat Speer]

Lee intoned:

"There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from"

Well, Lee...that is to be preferred in JFK studies. If I recall, in Stone's JFK movie, the Garrison

character said something like "we're through the looking glass here, folks, where black is white

and white is black!"

If you have studied the case and have not reached the point where BLACK IS BLACK AND WHITE

IS WHITE, then you have not acquired the proper sense of RIGHT AND WRONG to be pontificating to

others about it.

Black and white thinking and a sense of right and wrong are NECESSARY in THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

That you abhor it tells more about you than about us.

Jack

Wait...Are you saying you're really Jack Black? Excellent make-up!

[John Dolva]

I gotta rewrite my reply, got stuff to do. But I agree, it's a fight worth fighting.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Lee,

An outstnding post. Thank you for sharing your experience and your perspective. You have quite well nailed much of the problem in the research community overall. It has become polarized, ego driven and the search for factual truth is lost in the mix.

You are correct, imo, about the all black or all white thinking. No one has solved this case. No one has every fact nailed. There is much to study and work toward resolution, but that is difficult, if not impossible, when we are polarized by "I am right, your are wrong, so there is obviously something wrong with you and you must be an agent, provocateur or stupid besides" mindsets. It creates an environment that is not only inhospitable, but one that is a detriment to making real progress. There is much to be discussed ... many shades of gray to be cleared up before we have the all black and all white of factual truth.

There should be vigorous debate. Seeing how others see the same evidence is how we can grow, how we can learn ... if we can step back and take a second look, really hear and understand what someone else is saying ... and then make up our mind based on the evidence and strength of the argument presented ... not based on suspicion, paranoia ... and certainly not on ego.

So much for the ideal world.<g> The ad hominem nonsense that has been going on here is not unique to this forum, but that doesn't mean it is okay. By and large, my experience is that those serious about learning and discussing seek a place where they can ask questions, where they can express their thoughts and not be intimidated or cowed by those who are unable to conduct themselves with some decorum. Everybody can get snarky ... no biggie, some do not understand the difference between attacking an argument, attacking a theory, and being attacking or being attacked personally. There is, as I am sure you understand, a world of difference. In a moderated forum like this one and like alt.assassination.jfk it comes down to the moderators ability to create and keep a level playing field for all and to do so objectively, regardless of their personal views on the case.

I hope you will stick around. There are some good and knowledgeable people here ... who have all sorts of different perspectives on the evidence. And I know I owe you a reply on the throat wound ... I will do that tomorrow. Tonight I am going to see Elton John and Billy Joel! It'll be good to be somewhere where the noise is at least melodious and pleasing to the ears. LOL.

Take car. You know what you are about here. Don't let .... anybody ... get you down.

Bests,

Barb :-)

If you dont like it dont read it

Ruining the forum is a bit of a stretch

If we cant debate the facts of what we believe in then what do you suggest we do?

Ignore all posts that attack your thoughts and theories?

I cant do that, but at the same time I can assure you I am not looking to debate, its a fact of life on all forums Justin, not just this forum

Dean

The "If you don't like it don't read it" tactic has become nearly impossible lately as it has spread far and wide to many threads or you guys just start other threads arguing essentially the same things or find roundabout ways to insult each other. It used to not be "a fact of life" at this Forum. A person has to search far and wide to find threads that are not infected with your guys horse xxxx. Although I replied to Dean's post this reply is not directed to him or any one person but (as I stated originally) to those that continue to engage in endless debate where YOU KNOW YOU HAVE ZERO CHANCE of convincing the other camp. I stand by my original comment. You guys are ruining the Forum.

I dont see very many members saying that we are ruining the forum

I think debating what I believe in is a must do

Again im not going to sit back and let the LNers and Anti-alterationists push me or my fellow researchers/students around

Dean

For what it's worth I thought I'd give my own thoughts concerning the forum and my introductory experiences upon joining:

I put off becoming a member of this site for a number of years. I felt the discourse lacked civility and was filled with egotistical and reactionary posts from a wide variety of members and on a personal level I didn't know what my own reactions would be if I was faced with some of the tactics and rudeness that was prevalant.

After finally "plucking up" the courage to request membership it took only 2-3 days for me to be accused of having some sort of sinister agenda. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was "wrong" on various points regarding what amount to "personal beliefs" about the assassination. I was warned off talking about certain topics through personal e-mails. I was insulted and pictures of my wife requested. If I expressed a view that didn't meet a specific individual's paradigm it was met with a hostile reactionary response that was ultimately contradicted through the "accusing" person's own behaviours. I ultimately became everything I abhor because I rose to a lot of this in the wrong way and used the same tactics.

There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from (including myself although I do try to challenge my own bundles of thoughts most of the time). There is little acceptance of others alternative perspectives. There is no investigation of a "third" way. It is a "community" of separation, division and deep rooted suspicion. Propositional "truth" or objective truth is mixed together with "interior truthfulness" and has resulted in the type of environment on the forum that the Warren Commission so carefully crafted in 1964 - muddied waters, mixed messages, conflicting theories, and suspected ulterior motives.

Some of the closed-off thinking that exists is, ironically enough, the type of thinking that resulted in the "cold-war" firmly cementing itself into the consciousness of the people on opposing sides of "ideas." Wasn't this something that JFK fought so hard to unravel and was so brutally and barbarically murdered for on 11/22/63?

The way "bundles of thoughts" are expressed and defended on this forum remind me of Gordon Allport's Scale of Prejudice model:

1. Antilocution - Bad mouthing and name calling

2. Avoidance - Refusing participation in the group, ignoring them

3. Discrimination - Using your power to create a disadvantage for an individual

4. Physical Violence - Toward the individual or their property

5. Genocide

As you can see there are only five levels. Individuals on this forum use tactics that have climbed the first three rungs. I've heard that in certain "conferences" over the decades things have gotten so heated on occasion that the fourth level has almost manifested itself within the community. This is madness.

My first couple of posts were a call for the community to come together on the issues that united them in "propositional truth" but it seems that other issues are more important right now and the endless "debate" that has been going on for decades around these issues continues unabated.

I wholeheartedly agree with Justin. There are people that come to this forum to learn more about the assassination - to present their own ideas and let others who perhaps know more concerning certain topics help them develop their ideas into a more rounded "interior understanding" of events.

I am someone who has a medium level understanding of the assassination. I have gone after the testimony as my main area of interest and try to use that testimony to develop my own ideas of what happened.

After spending a month on the forum, I must admit that I feel quite deflated with the "conspiracy" community as a whole and have moments where I wish I didn't join.

I hope everyone understands that my thoughts expressed above are actually coming from a good place and not intended to "have a go" at any one individual but it is nevertheless a true and accurate reflection of my own personal experiences over the last 6-8 weeks. I must also say thanks to Pat Speer and Michael Hogan publicly for their calm and persuasive feedback that helped me create some space for myself whilst posting.

Lee

[Don Jeffries]

I appreciate what you're saying, Lee. We do need to be tolerant of other opinions. Most of the time, things are not entirely black or white. There is a huge gray area to many issues. And, as I've noted often here, we all need to stop the juvenile name-calling. Whatever your argument is, it will sound more persuasive if you remain civil.

However, those who've studied the JFK assassination should be able to agree on some basic points. The single bullet theory, for instance, is not a gray area. It is a black and white issue. It IS impossible. If that sounds intolerant, so be it. I won't call someone names who thinks it's possible, but I also will instantly disregard what they have to say on this subject. We don't have an obligation to grant every point of view the same level of respect. Saying the single bullet theory is possible, for example, is like saying the sky is red. No one respects freedom of speech any more than I do, but Jack quite correctly points out that once one has studied this subject in depth, then one's mind cannot be entirely open on it. When someone starts citing the "bunched up theory" for instance, the informed mind instantly rejects it and recognizes it for the disinformation it is. This is because the informed mind knows how much solid evidence makes such a theory impossible.

There has been a trend in the JFK research community, for a number of years now, where crucial aspects of what can loosely be described as "conspiracy theory" have fallen by the wayside, at least in the minds of many researchers. The backyard photos are an example of this. Duncan McRae just started a new thread on this subject. Back when I first started studying this case, circa 1975, everyone who was a CTer believed the backyard photos were fake. The only ones defending them as legitimate were government officials and/or the handful of LNers unconnected to the Warren Commission, Dallas police or FBI (Jim Moore springs to mind). All the critics were pretty well unified on the evidence. This is because the evidence then, as now, so obviously points to conspiracy. Other aspects of this case that were once ironclad planks in the CTer platform are: Oswald's innocence in the murder of Tippit, the mysterious deaths of witnesses, the umbrella man and many more.

Now before I am labeled "intolerant" or accused of demanding a "litmus test" for CTers, please understand that I am doing nothing of the kind. As I've stated before, if there had been any research or new evidence unrearthed over the past 30 + years, which persuasively argued that the backyard photos are legitimate, there were no mysterious deaths, Oswald killed Tippit, the umbrella man was just an innocent bystander, etc., then I would be willing ro reconsider my views on these aspects of the case. However, I am not aware of any new evidence or compelling research in this regard, so I remain dubious of those who now side with the LNers on these matters. I'm not accusing them of anything, but my informed mind must naturally question this.

I agree with Jack White on most everything, but I do not think film alteration is one of those black and white issues. However, while Jack's mind may be closed on this subject, so are the minds of his critics. I've mentioned it before, but it truly baffles me why so many spend so much time disagreeing with Jack or Jim Fetzer on this one aspect of the case, but the same people will bend over backwards to be kind to LNers. If you think there was a conspiracy, then surely you must agree with Jack and Jim more than any LNer, correct? There must be a lot more common ground between you, correct? Why demand "tolerance" for those who clearly don't know what they're talking about (single bullet theorists, for instance), but show no tolerance for film alterationists?

If I believed as strongly in something as Jack believes in film alteration, then I'd probably start being sensitive about being constantly critiicized, too. There is an inconsistency here; why don't passionate anti-alterationists like Josiah, Barb, Jerry, etc. lambaste Paul Baker or any other LNer who posts here? You think what Jack posts is worthy of your constant comdemnation, but what Baker or any other LNer posts isn't? Are you seriously suggesting that a belief in film alteration is more outlandish than total support of the official, Oswald acted alone theory?

I have no agenda here. I've been studying this case for a long time, and when I make these observations, it's not to caste dispersions upon any individual, or accuse anyone of anything. I simply think that some of those who have condemned Jack on this forum have been transparently obsessive in doing so.

While I don't quite understand the fixation that alterationists have with their pet issue (I think there are much stronger indications of conspiracy elsewhere in the evidence), I certainly don't understand the single-minded determination on the part of many of his critics to disprove his every assertion. A determination, I might add, that is not extended towards those who don't believe in conspiracy.

[Bernice Moore]

thanks jack you said it imo black is white and white is black,,lee .But as the AARB material started to filter through and Doug Horne became more vocal there appeared to be a change in attitude and the personal attacks more profound .I am not an educator but I do enjoy learning the rest of this site is incredible and there is much to be gleaned from it .But please lets get back to the research and leave the personal stuff where it belongs.. Ian

i fully agree ian as the truth has been spilling out from doug horne's great work i expected as did so many others, i am quite sure..that the levels of Attacks would resound loudly and become much more vociferous and often they did and they have as expected.it will continue.....the truth always has been and will be ..especially within the assassination of the president.. do not take all too seriously it takes one some time to get use to the noise levels on any of the forums..they rise and ebb with time...and try not to take what is said as being very seriously personal and really meant as such.... it usually is blowing off steam cause they whomever got out on the wrong side of the bed or just spilt their coffee or soda..do not dwell on such at all or you will never last grow a bit of a thicker shell if needed if it gets to you and often stay away from whom you see as provacateurs is good advice,,let them bury themselves they do so in the end..but stand up for yourself and your opinions....end of rattle..take care and best all b..

Edited February 11, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

Lee, You make some good points. Even before there was the Internet, there were these kinds of 'turf wars' between researchers - trust me on this! With the internet it became more complex. Most sites have some very sincere persons; some of them are often HIGHLY polarized in views [LN v. CT, for example], plus a dusting of provocateurs. Some, IMO, are just angry souls who like a good scrap when the other person can't grab them by the collar; a few I think are pros...I know that offends some..but it is my take. Look at the Mockingbird thread and the Cognitive Infiltration thread. The 'Retired' Intelligence Agents magazine even did a 'hit piece' on this Forum, generally - John Simkin, in particular [it is all on the Forum]. I know Jack, personally. He is a very kind, polite, generous, soft-spoken, if opinionated, person. He has been at this matter for decades and decades and is second or third generation researcher and IMO has made many important discoveries. Give him some slack. He is near 86, I believe, and was attacked, stabbed and nearly died - I believe this attack was directly related to his research. In addition, he has endured a never-ending barrage of internet attacks and I guess he has developed a sensitivity to them - who wouldn't after years of it and literally thousands - perhaps tens of thousands of such attacks. He knows many of the witnesses. He has labored long and hard for no monetary gain. He knew and knows many of the better researchers and was a frequent visitor to Mary Farrell's home - the inner sanctum. He has seen some of his friends and acquaintances die under suspicious circumstances and others who withdrew so as not to suffer a similar fate. To some, this subject is more 'visceral' than to others, to whom it is more ethereal and/or academic and/or comic. I fall into the visceral camp. My life was made a hell. I'll not go into it here. I'll never recover. I basically lost a normal life. Perhaps, that explains my reactions at times, as well. As to the original premise of this thread - i.e. too much infighting over the authenticity of films and photos - it IS an important issue. I agree, neither side will ever convince most of the others; but ON OCCASION, I have seen someone come in out of the 'the cold' to the other side! In the end, we have no control of how others post. I don't find that admonitions work - to the small extent they do, they last for a few days. I'd suggest one adjusts to this reality or find other [there are many] such sites that are less combative. I also post on some where there are virtually NO fights. One, a  year and a half old now, had its first small fight recently. This one has the great advantage of the shear quantity of information here and some sterling people - others are dregs. So it goes. The issue, especially for Americans is very charged. Some of us [like myself] feel we are loosing [have lost?] our Democracy and all that went along with it - and that the events of Dallas can be used as a lever to open the oft closed mind of fellow citizens before it is too late. That puts a lot of psychic and intellectual 'investment' into the arguments and posts, etc. Just some random thoughts in response to yours......

Peter...thanks for the kind words. Only one error. I just turned 83, not 86 (I need all the years I can get)

I know that you have suffered far more than I have, and have basically been forced into exile, for too much

digging into sensitive "classified" areas. After 19 years of cogitation, I have basically come to the conclusion

that the physical attack on me "may" have been a result of my photo work; that is the only way it can possibly

make any sense at all. And I did know at four researchers whose early deaths were were more successful

than "mine"...all related and all in the same time period. I figure I came off lucky to survive the near fatal

stabbing and beating in the nighttime intrusion. All 5 of us happened to be consultants to the JFK movie,

and all the events happened in a 3-5 year period; the attack on me happened to be the first of the 5,

but luckily I survived the ice pick attack. I was attacked while the movie was still shooting in '91.

You are correct about me being the kind of guy who would NEVER attack people. BUT, when other people

make senseless attacks on me, I cannot let such attacks go unchallenged, as that would be cowardly,

and send the wrong message. I stand up for truth, and resent UNDERINFORMED people making unprovoked

personal attacks. If they would never attack me, I would never respond to any of these provocateurs.

I have fought the internet wars against the lonenutters for more than 15 years, and as one of them fades

away, new and younger ones take their place. I believe some of these are PAID by sinister forces; others

are just persons with psychological problems, who get gratification by playing GOTCHA!

There are not as many paid provocateurs in the JFK affair as in other more monstrous charades such

as 911, Apollo, OKC, TWA800, etc. JFK was "just" the killing of a single man. Much more serious are the

callous murders of thousands in other events in deceptions on an enormous scale (to say nothing of

the ensuing wars).

These nitpickers have no concept of the gigantic struggle between GOOD and EVIL we are involved in.

The sinister forces of the New World Order do not consider it wrong to "eliminate" the masses if it serves

their corrupt agendas. The Skull and Bones elite death cult promotes death as a means toward progress.

The evil international bankers, led by David Rockefeller, decide who our "leaders" will be (ala Obama).

S&B and other evil groups promote EUGENICS as a means of wiping out entire populations, especially

in third world nations, especially those places with abundant natural resources that can be taken over.

Weaponry has been developed for weather control and creation of simulated natural disasters which

can provide excuses for occupying countries in the guise of "humanitarian relief".

"Democracy" that the revolutionists brought to America will soon be gone in a world ruled by propaganda

and mind control. Truth is the only lantern to shine light light into the dark places and only truth can

rip away the Oz curtain and expose the fraudulent wizards.

Thanks!

Jack

Edited February 11, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Lee, You make some good points. Even before there was the Internet, there were these kinds of 'turf wars' between researchers - trust me on this! With the internet it became more complex. Most sites have some very sincere persons; some of them are often HIGHLY polarized in views [LN v. CT, for example], plus a dusting of provocateurs. Some, IMO, are just angry souls who like a good scrap when the other person can't grab them by the collar; a few I think are pros...I know that offends some..but it is my take. Look at the Mockingbird thread and the Cognitive Infiltration thread. The 'Retired' Intelligence Agents magazine even did a 'hit piece' on this Forum, generally - John Simkin, in particular [it is all on the Forum]. I know Jack, personally. He is a very kind, polite, generous, soft-spoken, if opinionated, person. He has been at this matter for decades and decades and is second or third generation researcher and IMO has made many important discoveries. Give him some slack. He is near 86, I believe, and was attacked, stabbed and nearly died - I believe this attack was directly related to his research. In addition, he has endured a never-ending barrage of internet attacks and I guess he has developed a sensitivity to them - who wouldn't after years of it and literally thousands - perhaps tens of thousands of such attacks. He knows many of the witnesses. He has labored long and hard for no monetary gain. He knew and knows many of the better researchers and was a frequent visitor to Mary Farrell's home - the inner sanctum. He has seen some of his friends and acquaintances die under suspicious circumstances and others who withdrew so as not to suffer a similar fate. To some, this subject is more 'visceral' than to others, to whom it is more ethereal and/or academic and/or comic. I fall into the visceral camp. My life was made a hell. I'll not go into it here. I'll never recover. I basically lost a normal life. Perhaps, that explains my reactions at times, as well. As to the original premise of this thread - i.e. too much infighting over the authenticity of films and photos - it IS an important issue. I agree, neither side will ever convince most of the others; but ON OCCASION, I have seen someone come in out of the 'the cold' to the other side! In the end, we have no control of how others post. I don't find that admonitions work - to the small extent they do, they last for a few days. I'd suggest one adjusts to this reality or find other [there are many] such sites that are less combative. I also post on some where there are virtually NO fights. One, a  year and a half old now, had its first small fight recently. This one has the great advantage of the shear quantity of information here and some sterling people - others are dregs. So it goes. The issue, especially for Americans is very charged. Some of us [like myself] feel we are loosing [have lost?] our Democracy and all that went along with it - and that the events of Dallas can be used as a lever to open the oft closed mind of fellow citizens before it is too late. That puts a lot of psychic and intellectual 'investment' into the arguments and posts, etc. Just some random thoughts in response to yours......

Peter...thanks for the kind words. Only one error. I just turned 83, not 86 (I need all the years I can get)

I know that you have suffered far more than I have, and have basically been forced into exile, for too much

digging into sensitive "classified" areas. After 19 years of cogitation, I have basically come to the conclusion

that the physical attack on me "may" have been a result of my photo work; that is the only way it can possibly

make any sense at all. And I did know at four researchers whose early deaths were were more successful

than "mine"...all related and all in the same time period. I figure I came off lucky to survive the near fatal

stabbing and beating in the nighttime intrusion. All 5 of us happened to be consultants to the JFK movie,

and all the events happened in a 3-5 year period; the attack on me happened to be the first of the 5,

but luckily I survived the ice pick attack. I was attacked while the movie was still shooting in '91.

You are correct about me being the kind of guy who would NEVER attack people. BUT, when other people

make senseless attacks on me, I cannot let such attacks go unchallenged, as that would be cowardly,

and send the wrong message. I stand up for truth, and resent UNDERINFORMED people making unprovoked

personal attacks. If they would never attack me, I would never respond to any of these provocateurs.

I have fought the internet wars against the lonenutters for more than 15 years, and as one of them fades

away, new and younger ones take their place. I believe some of these are PAID by sinister forces; others

are just persons with psychological problems, who get gratification by playing GOTCHA!

There are not as many paid provocateurs in the JFK affair as in other more monstrous charades such

as 911, Apollo, OKC, TWA800, etc. JFK was "just" the killing of a single man. Much more serious are the

callous murders of thousands in other events in deceptions on an enormous scale (to say nothing of

the ensuing wars).

These nitpickers have no concept of the gigantic struggle between GOOD and EVIL we are involved in.

The sinister forces of the New World Order do not consider it wrong to "eliminate" the masses if it serves

their corrupt agendas. The Skull and Bones elite death cult promotes death as a means toward progress.

The evil international bankers, led by David Rockefeller, decide who our "leaders" will be (ala Obama).

S&B and other evil groups promote EUGENICS as a means of wiping out entire populations, especially

in third world nations, especially those places with abundant natural resources that can be taken over.

Weaponry has been developed for weather control and creation of simulated natural disasters which

can provide excuses for occupying countries in the guise of "humanitarian relief".

"Democracy" that the revolutionists brought to America will soon be gone in a world ruled by propaganda

and mind control. Truth is the only lantern to shine light light into the dark places and only truth can

rip away the Oz curtain and expose the fraudulent wizards.

Thanks!

Jack

You think I make money off this Jack or am I one of those you describe with psychological problems?

I was responding to Peter. I did not mention Lee at all. I do not know why he thinks this was directed

at HIM. I reported things that have happened to me over the last 40+ years. I have no idea what Lee's

problems are.

[Ken Rheberg]

Lee,

Jack wrote:

"I have fought the internet wars against the lonenutters for more than 15 years. . ."

This is all about "lonenutters."

Within this context, he goes on to say:

". . . some of these are PAID by sinister forces. . ."

and:

". . . others are just persons with psychological problems. . ."

These two connections made by Jack -- those being paid by sinister forces and those with psychological problems -- should be referring back to "lonenutters." So based on Jack's grammatical construction here, and because you're not a "lonenutter," he couldn't possibly have been talking about you.

As for Justin's original points as well as most of what you had to say, I couldn't agree more.

Ken

[Don Jeffries]

Lee, thanks for your thoughtful post. I find myself agreeing with most of what you have to say here.

It's unfortunate that even those on the same side in this fight often squabble over relatively minor details. This is nothing new- the original rift in the critical community was between Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg. As far as I could determine, it started over Weisberg's criticism of Lane for not listing the names of individual WC counsels when he quoted testimony in Rush To Judgment.

I probably am closer to Jack White philosophically than I am to any other poster on this forum. I wish he could see that you probably agree with much of what he posts. While I meant what I said about certain basic aspects of this case being black and white, on many issues related to the assassination there is no scientific certainty and lots of room for debate. In my view, film alteration is one of those gray areas. I have gradually evolved from an agnostic view on alteration to the point where I now believe that the Zapruder film is not completely legitimate.

All those who know the official story is impossible need to unite at some point. We should all acknowledge that none of us know exactly who killed JFK, exactly why he was killed, or the exact nature of the conspiracy. However, informed minds also need to stand firm behind the central tenet of the CTer platform- there WAS a conspiracy.

[Jack White]

Lee, thanks for your thoughtful post. I find myself agreeing with most of what you have to say here.

It's unfortunate that even those on the same side in this fight often squabble over relatively minor details. This is nothing new- the original rift in the critical community was between Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg. As far as I could determine, it started over Weisberg's criticism of Lane for not listing the names of individual WC counsels when he quoted testimony in Rush To Judgment.

I probably am closer to Jack White philosophically than I am to any other poster on this forum. I wish he could see that you probably agree with much of what he posts. While I meant what I said about certain basic aspects of this case being black and white, on many issues related to the assassination there is no scientific certainty and lots of room for debate. In my view, film alteration is one of those gray areas. I have gradually evolved from an agnostic view on alteration to the point where I now believe that the Zapruder film is not completely legitimate.

All those who know the official story is impossible need to unite at some point. We should all acknowledge that none of us know exactly who killed JFK, exactly why he was killed, or the exact nature of the conspiracy. However, informed minds also need to stand firm behind the central tenet of the CTer platform- there WAS a conspiracy.

Thanks, Don. I have yet to see any research by Lee. All he does is post his opinions and adhoms.

Jack

[Jack White]

Lee,

Jack wrote:

"I have fought the internet wars against the lonenutters for more than 15 years. . ."

This is all about "lonenutters."

Within this context, he goes on to say:

". . . some of these are PAID by sinister forces. . ."

and:

". . . others are just persons with psychological problems. . ."

These two connections made by Jack -- those being paid by sinister forces and those with psychological problems -- should be referring back to "lonenutters." So based on Jack's grammatical construction here, and because you're not a "lonenutter," he couldn't possibly have been talking about you.

As for Justin's original points as well as most of what you had to say, I couldn't agree more.

Ken

Another armchair psychiatrist heard from. The "connections" are in his mind.